2014 Energy Science & Technology Conference


Energetic Forum  

Go Back   Energetic Forum > Energetic Forum Discussion > Renewable Energy > Inductive Resistor
Homepage Energetic Science Ministries Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Inductive Resistor Open source development of highly efficient inductive resistor circuits.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1291 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 04:37 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by MileHigh View Post
Luc:

By connecting the bulb across the single battery and noting the voltage drop, and measuring the light bulb resistance, you have accumulated the data to calculate the output impedance of the battery. I know that you are working with .99 on this and he can help you there.

Also you shouldn't connect the three batteries directly in parallel, that could be dangerous. You should have a diode on each battery so the charging source goes through each diode.

MileHigh
I would argue differently MileHigh. The diode would simply drop the input from the 'regenerated current cycle'. Where are your comments regarding the clear evidence of recharge? Where, MileHigh and with the utmost respect, is your impartiality? That lack served us proud on TK's thread. Are you not aware how it mitigates in our interests rather than otherwise?

Last edited by witsend : 07-27-2009 at 07:53 AM. Reason: spelling
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1292 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 04:40 AM
MileHigh MileHigh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 140
Rosemary:

In the boxcar analogy, there are no magnetic fields. The fact that your moving finger is compressing the spring and force is thravelling through the spring is the equivalent.

Yes I would be prepared to acknowledge over unity if the results show that. I think it would be too soon to define it precisely before further investigaton though.

MileHigh
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1293 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 04:43 AM
MileHigh MileHigh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 140
Luc:

If you have three batteries shorted together one can start to discharge into the other and they could catch fire. Have you ever seen any "laptop battery fire" clips on YouTube?

MileHigh
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1294 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 04:43 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by MileHigh View Post
Rosemary:

Yes I would be prepared to acknowledge over unity if the results show that. I think it would be too soon to define it precisely before further investigaton though.

MileHigh
Ok - thanks MileHigh. That's here for the record folks. And we've already had Poynt's acknowledgement. I don't think it could be fairer.

You guys will have to come up with some explanation if you won't concede zero point energy? I'd be interested to see what comes out.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1295 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 04:45 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by MileHigh View Post
Luc:

If you have three batteries shorted together one can start to discharge into the other and they could catch fire. Have you ever seen any "laptop battery fire" clips on YouTube?

MileHigh
MileHigh - rather recommend that Luc keep a fire extinguisher handy. We need those tests done and he's configured it in a typically excellent manner to prove the argument.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1296 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 05:21 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Guys this is for TK.

I'm not from the outback. I'm from AFRICA that dark and beautiful continent South of Europe and South East of Canada. I have never been to Australia.

And TK we need you to post results. I'm sincerely sorry that I didn't keep better records of the test procedure but was not advised that it was required. And as we all know now, I'm an amateur. I hope you'll find it in yourself to eventually forgive the oversight.

A monk? That's a new twist. Never would have thought it.
and FE to all.

We seem to have lost the good offices of ramset for the time being. Could someone else with 'dual citizenship' please oblige and post this across to OU.com?

Last edited by witsend : 07-27-2009 at 05:43 AM. Reason: new ask
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1297 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 07:36 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,433
batteries

Quote:
Originally Posted by MileHigh View Post
Luc:

If you have three batteries shorted together one can start to discharge into the other and they could catch fire. Have you ever seen any "laptop battery fire" clips on YouTube?

MileHigh
No fear mongering here.

The laptop fires are from defective and dangerous lithium ion batteries. Whole different story. We're all using gel cells or liquid lead acids.

And you're comments about batteries in parallel?

You seem to be here to confuse people, put fear into them and urge people away from Luc's demo or how he is doing it.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1298 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 10:27 AM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,121
Hi Rose

Look in your in box, I have left a message

Mike
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1299 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 11:25 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Hi Mike - seen it - Finally. Sorry about that.

EDIT I think you can just call?

Last edited by witsend : 07-27-2009 at 11:31 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1300 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 11:47 AM
MileHigh MileHigh is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 140
Aaron:

Sometimes the Internet sucks, and looking for information about batteries in parallel is an example of this.

The best that I could find was a comment on a forum somewhere:

>
Discharging in parallel is a risk, we certainly use Ni-cds in parallel but beware that a failure in one battery can cause a catastrophic failure and risk of fire etc. What can happen if a cell in a battery fails is that the good battery in parallel with it can discharge into the failed battery / cell. Good practice is to only connect batteries in parallel when they have equal states of charge, never leave the batteries in parallel after use.

Charging batteries in parallel is not recommended at all, the batteries can charge at different rates potentially under-charging one and over-charging the other.
>

My comments:

I am not an expert on batteries and can't cite a reference. However, batteries are voltage sources. In a hypothetical example, connecting a very healthy battery with a nominal voltage of 12.6 volts with a very healthy battery with a nominal voltage of 12.0 volts is like creating a short circuit between the two batteries. One battery will be shorting out while the other battery will be being overcharged. It is not a healthy situation.

A weak battery that does not charge well in parallel with a good battery is a dangerous situation. The strong battery will start to discharge through the weak battery and both batteries will start to heat up. The heating up will increase the activity of the battery chemistry causing even more heating up and more current flow. This can set up a positive feedback loop and cause a thermal runnaway condition and fire. You end up with one or two 20-pound batteries that are ultra hot and near melting and possibly on fire and filled with boiling sulphuric acid ready to boil over and spray it everywhere.

> You seem to be here to confuse people, put fear into them and urge people away from Luc's demo or how he is doing it.

Enough, get out of your spin zone. If the tests on Rosemary's circuit all show an under unity situation, then you can look through all of my postings in this thread and come to the realization that they are the truth. I am not here to confuse people so stop saying it.

I am urging people to not put batteries in parallel for sure.

MileHigh

Last edited by MileHigh : 07-27-2009 at 11:54 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1301 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 11:50 AM
Joit Joit is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,922
Claim

One Thing still gets me.
What is the actually Claim from the Device.
Having COP 17 while creating Heat or make Overunity?

Overunity would mean, you create more Energy, or support more Work, as what is running through the Circle.
COP over 1 means, you can (in this Case) make heat with lesser Losses, as when you take the Energy directly from the Source.
But then you can wait for that your Batteries are slowly going down.
When someone can make it, to keep them loaded, it would be an advantage.
Just to make clear, what we can Expect.

Nice Video Luc btw, and i see by myself, adjusting the Cycles are an importend Part of it.
I did run another Try by myself, and after adjusting it to, where the whistle from the Coil did sound some unusual, like overlapping, i did leave it, just did adjust it a bit further, that the Voltage drop is slowest.

Just this time i did connect my ugly Coil different.
I did connect the inner, thinner Windings across Plus and the 10W Pot to the Secondary, thicker one.
so Plus ^Coil-Pot parallel and set to ~120 Ohm^-second Coil^ Heating Element (~50 Ohm/220V)-Drain- Source-Minus.
I did let run it over Night, but with this Row, i could make it, that the Heat appears half at the Transistor, and half at the Element. IMHO.
The Element is handwarm now, and Batteries did drop from average 12V to 10,5V at 10 Hours..
I try to adjust it now, to see, if i can make the drop down slower.

Last edited by Joit : 07-27-2009 at 11:54 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1302 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 11:56 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
So - at the risk of repetition - I think we're now at the stage that we've at least identified the difference between the two schools. Mainstream - old school - believes that the energy that has been delivered during the on period of the duty cycle is somehow stored on the system. New age believes that this energy is actually 'regenerated' during the second part of the switching cycle, thereby adding more energy to the system.

Where new age has got the edge is that the actual current flow around the circuit is still able to respond in terms of inductive laws. Old school, with respect have had to bend their thoughts around the most complicated of processes to try and explain how stored energy can somehow manifest as current on both the positive and the negative rail - concurrently - without going through the battery.

However, at those times, which vary with every explanation - that it is conceded that the energy does go through the battery - they then have the onerous if not impossible task of explaining how enough energy can be stored away from the battery to exceed the battery's own resistance to recharge it. Just a mismash of nonsense - posing as science - and justified not by experimental evidence but by consensus for goodness sake. Quite amusing really.

Last edited by witsend : 07-27-2009 at 12:25 PM. Reason: spelling
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1303 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 12:02 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Joit - I see you keep asking this question. We're actually claiming that we can exceed unity. In other words we can dissipate more energy in a system than was provided.

It's not increased efficiency. It actually is more energy out than in. Puts paid to conservation laws. The whole shebang. That's what we're arguing - but we still have to get my claim replicated. That's what Aaron's doing and, also gotoluc - but his is on a different circuit.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1304 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 12:10 PM
Hoppy Hoppy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Yes, but that didn't answer the question - but I'll look at your answer.

But I do appreciate your honesty in admitting Over 1.0 COP It's about time.

You said that it is all converted to work or wasted. Right, but you metion no useful purpose. Well, whether or not there is a useful purpose for the work done or not is irrelevant because it IS a demonstration of work being done and ANYTHING that adds to entropy of the universe is indeed WORK being demonstrated. In our case, the heat on the element is VERY USEFUL since it is what we want if our goal is to have a heater.

Therefore, if 100% of what leaves the battery over 24 hours is converted to heat, we know that at a certain voltage X amperage leaving the battery, it is all converted to heat. There is nothing complicated about that.

Therefore if 100% is turned into heat and you clearly admit "If energy is recovered then this will not be additional energy gained by the system, only re-directed energy that would have otherwise been dissipated somewhere else in the circuit."

That means that any energy - your definition of if it is gained or re-directed is a matter of perspective and isn't really relevant to the fact - BECAUSE of the fact that if 100% was turned into heat. ANYTHING that is recovered and put back to work is 100%+.

I appreciate your honesty!

Now, I understand that you are saying IF there is recovery - gained or redirected is irrelevant - you are saying if and that doesn't mean necessarily that you believe there can be anything recovered. But do you?

Those spikes can be recovered. If you recover spikes and charge a cap to 1000v @ 2uf, you have 1 joule of potential sitting there. If 100% of what left the battery was turned into heat energy. Where the heck did 1 joule come from? I guarantee you I can perform more work with that 1 joule.

I'm not saying that the inductive resistor will charge a 1000v @ 2uf cap because it won't be able to push that unless that inductive resistors is a monster. But the fact of the matter is that if ANYTHING can be recovered into a capacitor - then that is potential that can be put back to work that is above and beyond the 100% that was ALREADY used up.

EDIT: I say 100% meaning 100% of what we pay for - not including what nature gives us back for free.
Hi Aaron

I'm back and thanks for your reply. I will try to explain my thinking in a little more detail. The SG Monopole motor is perhaps a good example to use. Loading the shaft mechanically will affect the energy discharged from the inductor and vica-versa. It is not possible for the mechanical or electrical side of the motor to be loaded without affecting each other. The motor seeks a balance between electrical and mechanical output for a given level of input energy. Charging a secondary battery is a diversion of energy which will be compensated by a rebalance of energy in other parts of the system. The inductor acts as an energy storage tank that can be tapped but has to be refilled in order to keep balance with the tapped load. Heat is produced in the process of switching, converting the low voltage input to high voltage output. This high voltage allows a secondary battery to charge and it is here that claims are made that a battery charged in this way will deliver more out than in. IMO nobody has ever shown convincing proof of this. We are shown very low power motor devices being run for very long periods of time from batteries, but these are all utilising the 'Peukert Effect' to a degree depending on the capacity of the supply battery, giving the impression of self-running but these are not overunity systems.

As Peter Lindeman has shown in his excellent videos, PM motors can be made more efficient. However, in terms of total energy input to total energy output both electrical and mechanical, they can never run overunity by feeding back energy to the supply battery. COP>1 is of course achievable if the criteria is based on some or all of the input energy to a system being a free energy supply being defined as a 'non-user' input obtained from environmental sources as described in John Bedini's Free Energy book. Even a COP of infinity is possible with full environmental energy input but the point is COP>1 or infinity does not take a system overunity. If I rig my electricity meter and pay no grid power bill, I can claim a COP infinity system. I do not see this criteria for calculating COP as being at all helpful as a means to measure the true performance of an electro-mechanical device such as a PM or SG monopole motor.

Hoppy
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1305 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 12:30 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
EDIT actually ignore this - I've just seen the question has been addressed. Sorry.

Welcome back by the way.

Last edited by witsend : 07-27-2009 at 12:35 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1306 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 01:29 PM
jibbguy jibbguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 987
"Test" & Construction Plans next on the agenda?

Not being able to replicate this myself presently, i am just a gadfly. However, if i could suggest some things from observation (aimed at those brave & skilled souls who have replicated despite the absurd constant and loud cries for them not to), i believe it would help get things moving a little faster... And it should help in gaining even more interest (...of the positive kind lol).

Respectfully Submitted Suggestions:

> This has become more of an argument of "for and against" this last couple weeks: Perhaps the thing to do is move ahead with the surety that the "Fors have it".... Those that don't like it can find some salt, and pound it night and day for all it's worth... And contact with naysayers should just cease and be ignored. Anyone who has ever tried to push a project from inception to Market knows, that there is a point where debate is no longer constructive; and continuing with it will only dampen progress. At some point, the new board lay-out has be sent to the Masking Machine, or there will NEVER be a product Have we reached that point?

> Define the experiment a bit better; mainly by posting a new schematic of what is known to work without too much tweaking, with all component values & part numbers. Note any construction difficulties.

> Define the astable oscillation of the MOSFET and how to achieve it a bit better. Post more and detailed scope shots of what it will look like for the Replicator to compare.

> Define the measurement regime a bit better so it can be reproduced easier as well. These things may seem "repetitious" but imo you can't be too repetitious in these cases. The instrumentation that will be required to do the measurements should be defined as well: From all indications so far it will need a storage scope to do it completely and accurately (although positive results can be seen without one, and temperature measurements can be done, the idea imo would be to document the actual pulse DC voltage and current waveforms and figures as well as the temps, which since this is not a "motor" that does visible work everyone can see, will be critical for eventual acceptance).

> A Test Plan can be posted for following. This will help greatly in gaining acceptance, as the data between replications is more uniform, can be compared, and allows for better analysis to see what varied results will occur with slight variations and "tweaks". Sometimes very interesting phenomena are found this way; though these variations of the theme. Once the above is defined fully, i would gladly help in writing this Test Plan, as i've done it many times for "Beta Testing" new products.

If we have such a "set of plans" for replication, one here who has not yet tried this circuit could then run through the "construction plans" and "test plan" as a check to see how they work in the "R-W".

> When that is successful, then we are ready for the "big-time" (verification with academic witnesses). It may take some time to find one willing to put their reputation on the line, but this can be done by "starting small", with a Community College science/electronics teacher (or a EE PHD who is not an academic), then using their signed deposition to entice a full-blown University Prof to get off their duff and do their bit for Humankind. They can be found. The one will leverage the other, on up the line... Each previous deposition being "rear-end cover" to protect the next. A few of these and we are on the way to total success.

During this time of first gaining academic acceptance, with no offense at all to Rosemary, i would suggest the entire focus be on verifying EMPIRICAL results, with little or no mention of the Theory behind it: We will be more successful with the above imo if we only attempt to foment one revolution at a time

Now i may be premature in my timing, but if we are not ready, then the focus should be on getting there: Crossing the "T's", getting all our ducks to quack at the same time (...coming to consensus and thus firming-up the circuit design), and ignoring the deliberate detractors so real progress can start.

..Or not. They are only suggestions given in the spirit of trying to help in some meager way
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1307 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 01:51 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Jibbguy - your proposals are excellent. Truth is we're just one good storage scopemeter away from doing that replicated test. Everything's more or less done and dusted - just need those finely tuned numbers.

My own scope is being fixed. I was promised delivery today - but this is Africa.

That's the delay. The discussion is just to fill time. But I hear you. A detailed plan would be a good thing.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1308 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 02:08 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
During this time of first gaining academic acceptance, with no offense at all to Rosemary, i would suggest the entire focus be on verifying EMPIRICAL results, with little or no mention of the Theory behind it: We will be more successful with the above imo if we only attempt to foment one revolution at a time Jibbguy

Just to point out here - we've done this. Over and over and over. Everyone looks at the results - shakes their heads - and then moves on with their lives. Look at the list of accreditors. One even went so far as to offer our local university a bursary to take the study further. The professors in their wisdom saw fit to challenge that there was any point in the exercise. And I haven't even covered the full list of accreditors in that paper. Lots and lots and lots of electrical engineers of varying caliber - and qualification - saw or replicated that experiment. It still sat dusty and ignored for 7 years.

In point of fact unless this is a stated object that the academics look at the argument and not the evidence only - we may as well be shut up shop right now. It really is not enough to cross fingers and hope that academics will be impressed. They wont. They don't even come to demonstrations. The paper was not even sent to review. Substandard or not I should have had a reviewer's recommendations for resubmission. I am most anxious that the 'spike' be evaluated on a theoretical basis. Obviously the demo will support this. And if we don't point out the significance who will?

EDIT That's why I'm so anxious to point out that the results cannot be explained in terms of stored energy. They must be seen as a regenerated cycle of energy during the off period. Everytime I get close to this (sorry was interrupted) point then the subject veers away. It's in the face of a vast number of boffins who've bought into the 'stored' theory and explained it with some really exotic science.

I am so frightened that this will again be evident and ignored. That's all that I've found so far.

Last edited by witsend : 07-27-2009 at 03:09 PM. Reason: spelling
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1309 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 02:38 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Have just been in contact with the Fluke in Holland. They were indirectly involved with the early accreditation - related to Spescom. A gentleman there is going to see if he can open doors at Fluke in America to see if they can get us an instrument to use - may be quicker than waiting for mine.

That way Aaron will be able to go ahead with his presentation?

I'll keep you posted.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1310 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 02:39 PM
Armagdn03 Armagdn03 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by witsend View Post
This is so precisely as I've tried to describe current flow in my paper. Armagdn03 - here's my question? How long have you known this and is it widely understood by the guys on this forum?

Dissipated energy is a secondary phenomenon. Is that how you see it?
Cant say how long I have known, but I dont really think it is understood by almost anybody. I was watching a guy speak, who was a former "black ops" who said that the military had circuits which only "spent time". At the time I thought he was full of crap, but now I can clearly see what he is saying. This goes deeper than just heat, it goes to the heart of all energy, and the assumption that there is, was, and has been a finite amount.

A condenser charged, will share its charge with another condenser of the same properties. The energy dissipated in doing so will always be the same. If you place different loads in-between you will always end up with the same balance, how long it took will be the only difference. Bulbs, motors, resistive loads, doesn't matter, same energy is lost. Energy is apparently lost because we have spread a potential over a larger surface area (higher total capacitance). This need not be the case, for inductors themselves look like the perfect "negative resistor" sucking up every last drop of energy in the condenser. (this cannot happen if we keep sharing between caps).

Placing loads in between the cap and inductor complicates things. Anything that diminishes the flow, (resistors etc.) spreads out the TIME it takes for the interaction to take place. This means the inductor will not rise to as high an energetic state, which then also means it has less energy stored. It will return less when it becomes source, and cap becomes sink, your coefficient of restitution will suffer. This is mostly due to ohms law.

Take a motor for instance though, one like Dr. Lindemann is touting. A capacitor discharges into a motor winding. Because the motor creates no secondary current opposed to the first, energy stored in the inductor is not limited in any way, and is free to return to the capacitor. (especially if built so the reluctance does not change). You basically have a delay line tank circuit, or this one way tank. Now there is nothing in the way of collecting as much as possible back from the inductor, and you get rotation on top of it all.

Put in one pulse of energy, and it will be recirculated, over and over until it slowly runs out. The more run time you have off of a single pulse, the more judiciously you have managed your time expenditure.

I have a transformer which "rings", each ring pumps a charge in a secondary circuit. If a load is attached, the ring does not die faster, Try this with a normal transformer, and the load will kill the ring right off the bat.

Edit:

I didnt see Luc's latest video, excellent compliment to what I am trying to explain.

Last edited by Armagdn03 : 07-27-2009 at 03:11 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1311 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 03:18 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Armagdn03 - the model requires that current flow is a primary event and conserves charge. Dissipated energy is a secondary event as a result of charge moving through the material of the resistor. They are two entirely different moments.

But the charge or current is always sensitive to polarity. The higher potential difference determines the direction. When the switch is open, then the higher potential difference is on the load. This reverses, and in terms of inductive laws must then regenerate another cycle of energy. That's counter electromotive force - in my book. Nothing stored. Just another cycle of energy.

And that way you don't need those explanations that are entirely extraneous to fundamental principles of current - current generation and current flow. Just so simple.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1312 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 03:18 PM
jibbguy jibbguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 987
Edit: This was the response to Rosemary's Post #1310 above.
____________________

I can understand that, it must be horribly frustrating!!

Here is what i & others i know can do once this is properly documented (all over again lol): Write articles and get them published with at least 1 million readers... With "You-Tubes" for illustration as well. If this campaign done right and is as successful as i suspect, it will be picked up very widely indeed for many times more readers/viewers by the independent internet press.

A separate e-mail campaign to academics all over the world to make them aware of it will also be done.... The circuit will be discussed at Department Meetings in a hundred Universities. Whether this will actually get Studies done in the U.S. is very questionable, but the point is to shove it in their face so it is harder to deny

There are ways to push these things. Timing is important, and everything must be well-defined and proofs apparent. When we arrive, with academic acceptance, with such an awareness campaign there can be much public clamoring for it.... Especially if this coincides with colder winter months in the Northern Hemisphere; when "short-sighted" or not, "efficient & cheap heating" issues are much more important to people... And so will help them to have their imaginations captured, and thus perhaps a popular grass roots "Letter to Government Leaders", and "Letters To The Editor" of local newspapers writing campaigns started. These may at first appear "weak" in scope but it is amazing how they can grow, and what effect they can have... Especially when easily-understood basic pocket-book issues are at stake.

There are MILLIONS of good people on this planet, who know things are wrong and who want to help, somehow. Giving them a CHANCE to do something positive is almost like doing them a favor. And it is very important to remember. we are not asking for "money", only awareness. Hehehe, this is the worst nightmare of our enemies

One VERY GOOD aspect of this technology is, no yahoo jerk can claim "danger" or "national security".. Lol for a heating element? ... What, are we afraid the terrorists in the caves will use it for staying warm, lol? The shills will be utterly destroyed if they tried it, and i relish the thought of doing so . So their favorite tactic of "Fear" is stolen from them.

So i feel confident that THIS TIME, the news can be made to reverberate around the 'web and foreign press in a very positive way... Up to a point where public interest forces the corporate-owned mainstream media to mention it as well... They cannot afford to be caught suppressing; that works when only a few know the Truth...This is because ALL WE NEED to kick the wall down the rest of the way, and finally let the light in, is a well-documented and unshakable example of corrupt, non-military suppression.... And it's all over.

However, i cannot stress enough that the Profs are not the only ones who will need their backsides covered. We must perform our do-diligence work well and completely, as it will be attempted to be picked-apart by the BEST they have... Imagine TK to the power of 3 ; with a bunch of Degrees after his name. That is what we could be up against (if any cracks in the proofs are detected at all); and only the most careful documentation will survive... But in fact, if done well enough to begin with; that will be ended before it starts: As these guys cannot afford to be seen as deliberately attacking it without "plausibly-deniable" reason

I think before, that there was no serious attempt to "wide-band" this over the 'net. I've been studying these techs for years now, and did not hear about it before Peter and Aaron pointed it out a few months ago. That is not to say i am omniscient lol, but i think others here have had the same experience. I have no quarrel here and am not trying to be demeaning in any way: But no one i know ever heard of "Quantum" magazine ... Meaning that it was deliberately ignored because of the import and because they COULD get away with it.

Technically that should not have been YOUR job You did the work to bring it forth (and have it verified), and others should have taken it from there. I am not criticizing them either, as it is certainly not easy, nor assured of success.

But perhaps a new country, and a new time of increased social awareness are what will make the difference here

At the very least, it will go down in "a blaze of glory"; and it will be a beacon for others in the future, and a very good example of suppression to point to. Every hammer blow against the wall will help eventually bring it down...

And the "Truth" can be hidden, disguised, "imprisoned" for a hundred years, and it can even be "tortured"... But it cannot be killed.
__________________________________________________ ____________

Edit #2: BTW folks all of this i wrote today is a prescription for ANY Free Energy technology to break out via Open Source... And this does not have to be "Mutually Exclusive", it can be done simultaneously for many techs

Last edited by jibbguy : 07-27-2009 at 03:38 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1313 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 04:12 PM
Hoppy Hoppy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armagdn03 View Post
Cant say how long I have known, but I dont really think it is understood by almost anybody. I was watching a guy speak, who was a former "black ops" who said that the military had circuits which only "spent time". At the time I thought he was full of crap, but now I can clearly see what he is saying. This goes deeper than just heat, it goes to the heart of all energy, and the assumption that there is, was, and has been a finite amount.

A condenser charged, will share its charge with another condenser of the same properties. The energy dissipated in doing so will always be the same. If you place different loads in-between you will always end up with the same balance, how long it took will be the only difference. Bulbs, motors, resistive loads, doesn't matter, same energy is lost. Energy is apparently lost because we have spread a potential over a larger surface area (higher total capacitance). This need not be the case, for inductors themselves look like the perfect "negative resistor" sucking up every last drop of energy in the condenser. (this cannot happen if we keep sharing between caps).

Placing loads in between the cap and inductor complicates things. Anything that diminishes the flow, (resistors etc.) spreads out the TIME it takes for the interaction to take place. This means the inductor will not rise to as high an energetic state, which then also means it has less energy stored. It will return less when it becomes source, and cap becomes sink, your coefficient of restitution will suffer. This is mostly due to ohms law.

Take a motor for instance though, one like Dr. Lindemann is touting. A capacitor discharges into a motor winding. Because the motor creates no secondary current opposed to the first, energy stored in the inductor is not limited in any way, and is free to return to the capacitor. (especially if built so the reluctance does not change). You basically have a delay line tank circuit, or this one way tank. Now there is nothing in the way of collecting as much as possible back from the inductor, and you get rotation on top of it all.

Put in one pulse of energy, and it will be recirculated, over and over until it slowly runs out. The more run time you have off of a single pulse, the more judiciously you have managed your time expenditure.

I have a transformer which "rings", each ring pumps a charge in a secondary circuit. If a load is attached, the ring does not die faster, Try this with a normal transformer, and the load will kill the ring right off the bat.

Edit:

I didnt see Luc's latest video, excellent compliment to what I am trying to explain.

This all sounds reasonable to me and highlights the need to reduce resistive elements to get best power transfer between capacitor and inductor in the case of the motor example. However, given that the inductor and capacitor will be far from 'pure / perfect' devices, a state of unity cannot be achieved in the physical circuit and under unity efficiency optimisation is all that can be hoped for.

If there is any hope at all towards overunity, the focus should perhaps be on the battery as John Bedini has said so many times. The 'motor' might possibly generate the necessary 'trigger' to cause the battery to self-charge but I'm certainly not holding my breath on this claim ever being proved correct.

Hoppy
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1314 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 04:24 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Jibbguy - I love your writing. What a rally call. I absolutely agree. For once the presentation must be impeccable. I know Aaron et al will see to it.

I'm not down. Not at all. I phone Fluke and suddenly they're rallying. I phone a previous accreditor and suddenly there's interest again. I know that this will come out as true. What excitement when it does. Whether you or I are around when it does happen also doesn't matter. Just as long as the truth comes out.

What fun.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1315 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 05:13 PM
Armagdn03 Armagdn03 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoppy View Post
This all sounds reasonable to me and highlights the need to reduce resistive elements to get best power transfer between capacitor and inductor in the case of the motor example. However, given that the inductor and capacitor will be far from 'pure / perfect' devices, a state of unity cannot be achieved in the physical circuit and under unity efficiency optimisation is all that can be hoped for.

If there is any hope at all towards overunity, the focus should perhaps be on the battery as John Bedini has said so many times. The 'motor' might possibly generate the necessary 'trigger' to cause the battery to self-charge but I'm certainly not holding my breath on this claim ever being proved correct.

Hoppy
Its a parallel viewpoint.

Say the input is 10v peak to peak, then it rings down to 5v in 100 cycles. You are loosing energy on the input. But if the output is the cumulative total of all peaks together, then you have much more output than input. You want a reactive input, and a traditional output, its all in the action of carefully designed transducers. Its not about batteries. Think of an oil rig, you can pump more energy out of the ground then it takes to run the pump. Input is a energy conserving "pump" and the energy you move with it is the oil.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1316 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 05:23 PM
Armagdn03 Armagdn03 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoppy View Post
This all sounds reasonable to me and highlights the need to reduce resistive elements to get best power transfer between capacitor and inductor in the case of the motor example. However, given that the inductor and capacitor will be far from 'pure / perfect' devices, a state of unity cannot be achieved in the physical circuit and under unity efficiency optimisation is all that can be hoped for.

If there is any hope at all towards overunity, the focus should perhaps be on the battery as John Bedini has said so many times. The 'motor' might possibly generate the necessary 'trigger' to cause the battery to self-charge but I'm certainly not holding my breath on this claim ever being proved correct.

Hoppy
Its a parallel viewpoint.

Say the input is 10v peak to peak, then it rings down to 5v in 100 cycles. You are loosing energy on the input. But if the output is the cumulative total of all peaks together, then you have much more output than input. You want a reactive input, and a traditional output, its all in the action of carefully designed transducers. Its not about batteries. Think of an oil rig, you can pump more energy out of the ground then it takes to run the pump. Input is a energy conserving "pump" and the energy you move with it is the oil.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1317 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 05:51 PM
Jetijs's Avatar
Jetijs Jetijs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,132
Hi Rosemary and all
I was out of reach for the weekend, but now I am back I made an interesting test today. I used my Attraction motor circuit again, but this time I increased the input capacitor capacity to 40000uF, because I noticed that if I turn the power supply down, the circuit works for a wile after that till the capacitor depletes. I wanted to extend that time to the max and compare how long it would take for the circuit to drain the capacitor depending on whether or not the recovery part is used. I installed a switch on the power supply side so that I could disconnect the circuit from the power supply completely and I used a stop watch to measure the time till the spikes on my scope disappear. I tried it with and without recovery for many times to get a precise result. The thing is that without the recovery it took about 5.3 seconds for the circuit to drain the capacitor. But with the recovery it took 6.7 seconds. The current that was circulating through the circuit was about 200mA and the current used from power supply when it was connected to the circuit was 150mA. Sounds like a good proof that the recovered inductive spike can indeed charge a capacitor and no excess energy is being consumed from the power supply.

Jetijs
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1318 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 06:31 PM
witsend witsend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Hi Jet, Not sure I understand it all but it sounds good. Well done. I might tell you I looked at your previous post waveforms and they blew me away. There's major energy there. You must have a pretty hefty inductor.

kindest regards,
rosemary
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1319 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 07:33 PM
Hoppy Hoppy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armagdn03 View Post
Its a parallel viewpoint.

Say the input is 10v peak to peak, then it rings down to 5v in 100 cycles. You are loosing energy on the input. But if the output is the cumulative total of all peaks together, then you have much more output than input. You want a reactive input, and a traditional output, its all in the action of carefully designed transducers. Its not about batteries. Think of an oil rig, you can pump more energy out of the ground then it takes to run the pump. Input is a energy conserving "pump" and the energy you move with it is the oil.
Yes, more potential energy can be pumped out of the ground in the form of oil using a lesser amount of energy to run the pump but the oil needs to undergo energy consuming processing to convert its potential energy into useable fuel. Although minerals such as oil does provide more energy than is used to process it from its natural form, oil required massive energy to form in its geological context. In the same way, the heat produced from lightning travelling through a conductor does not magically manifest without a greater energy being necessary to set up the atmospheric conditions required for the conversion of electrical potential to the lightening strike that produces the subsequent current flow in the conductor.

I suggest that there will probably always be abundant potential energy available from the earths natural resources, so long as we can discover new and more efficient methods of conserving and converting these natural resources into energy forms useful to mankind. We have probably only scratched the surface in this endeavour.

Hoppy
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
  #1320 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2009, 07:46 PM
Jetijs's Avatar
Jetijs Jetijs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,132
Rosemary,
it is very simple really. You should look at Peters electric motor secrets thread:
Electric Motor Secrets
It is very long, but there is a lot of valuable info there, so if you have to kill some time, you can read it through
I made a simplified schematic so that it is easier to understand:



We just use a bifilar coil. One winding is the power winding and other is the recovery winding. It takes some time for the coil to develop a magnetic field around it. As the field builds up, so does also the current that is flowing through. When the magnetic field is at its max strength, current does not rise anymore and goes in a flat line. Here you can see how this looks like on a scope across a shunt resistor:


You can see that the current rises till the coil core (if there is any) is fully magnetized, after that the current does not increase anymore. There is no need to maintain the current flow any further because this is just power wasted and we can not recover it. So we adjust the duty cycle so that the ON time is only short enough for the coil core to fully magnetize. So now we have a fully charged coil. If we now cut the current flow then the field collapses and induces a new current that we can recover and send to the front side capacitor. There will be losses, but we can recover up to 90% of that energy and maybe even more. The cap charges up and thus less power is needed from the power supply. This is what the current waveform looks like across the S1 shunt resistor:



And this is the current waveform on the S2 shunt:



So you see that we can get most of the energy back and this is real current flow that indeed can charge up a capacitor. So all we need is just to adjust the duty cycle so that the on time is just enough for the coil core to fully magnetize and this will get us the best input/output ratio.
Hope this helps
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Closed Thread



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8
2007 Copyright ? Energetic Forum? A Non Profit Corporation - All Rights Reserved